Least played classes?

[Invurnus]

I'm not as knowledgeable as the other folks on this thread, but I did play a Ranger to 60 on live and have a 36 wiz on p1999, so here's my 2 cp...

- The hybrid XP penalty seems extremely punishing to me. I agree with Duckforceone that it should be a real consideration before anyone rolls a hybrid. I had a lot more time on my hands when I played the Ranger, and so I might have rolled one back then even if I knew about the penalty. But today...well, EQ is enough of a grind as it is...

- Rangers are still very fun. I love the look (especially dual-wielding), and you get track, snare, root, SoW, buffs, healing, even a fear spell come Velious. If you have extra time to level your toon, you could consider being one of those rare Rangers out there.

- I absolutely love the wizard class. Leveling is slow until quad kiting becomes viable, then it's like the only way to fly. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Some people say the class is boring, and I get that...but self ports is a game-changing power, and you can easily make up for any one-dimensional aspects of the class by leveling in different areas.

- Lorean put together a very handy matrix that might influence your decision further. I think the comments and rankings here seem very spot on, based on what I've read in the forums: http://wiki.project1999.org/Loraen%2...election_Guide

Ultimately I agree with the folks that say you should play what you want to play, but I do think the XP penalty should be a real consideration as well. I think you need to factor in how much time you want to put into the game and how much you enjoy the grind. I think for the right player Rangers, Paladins, etc. are a fine choice.

[Seredoc]

Originally Posted by Invurnus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...- Lorean put together a very handy matrix that might influence your decision further. I think the comments and rankings here seem very spot on, based on what I've read in the forums: http://wiki.project1999.org/Loraen%2...election_Guide
...

So I am just trying to understand something from that matrix. Druids are pretty much across the board the worst pure class except for solo xp/pp and < level 50. Hard epic, only good for duo's at low levels, less desired in a raid than rangers(wtf) and the weakest class at lvl 60.

So I am taking from this that essentially, everyone plays a druid because they're fun but once a druid dings to 40 they should never look for a group ever again, if once they started quad/charm kiting they even bothered, is that about right?

Also, I don't understand why pallies aren't a few points higher on the duo list, stuns + root and deep health pool and ability to heal oneself, you'd think they'd duo well in mid levels with non kite classes.

Wizards: Quoted from wiki "Congrats, everyone knows you suck in XP groups..." Erm, this means what? Is it just the long cast times or something? I must not be understanding something about wizards.


I only have some previous experience, played on Xegony for a while and only did a few raids(max lvl before I got burned out was 55), but I did them on a druid and I'm wondering one last question: is the raiding scene here so messed up that unless I min/max with a cookie cutter race/class combo I can never hope to get in on one? It really seems, for lack of a better word (and only according to forum drama so I am fairly certain I am jumping to atleast a few conclusions xD), tyrannical.

[Sithel1988]

theres always groups no matter what class you are. if there are no groups then you are dumb

[cs616]

Bards are really common at the lower to mid levels but it seems a lot of people lose interest in them after the easy exp ride is over in the 50s. If you want to play a class to 60 that should be in pretty high demand a bard would not be a bad option. I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer than 20 active level 60 bards on the server right now.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Seredoc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So I am taking from this that essentially, everyone plays a druid because they're fun but once a druid dings to 40 they should never look for a group ever again, if once they started quad/charm kiting they even bothered, is that about right?

You'll still find druids in groups. There's always something you'd want instead of a druid, but you can't always find what you need, and not everyone is so discriminating. (Consequently, you may find yourself in a group with 2 bards, a druid, a ranger, and 2 paladins. It has happened to me in Karnors).

Originally Posted by Seredoc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, I don't understand why pallies aren't a few points higher on the duo list, stuns + root and deep health pool and ability to heal oneself, you'd think they'd duo well in mid levels with non kite classes.

It's hard to be part of an effective duo when you do almost no dps. Something like a shaman makes up for this with mind-bogglingly powerful slows in addition to buffs, heals, and mana recovery. I'd say they can duo adequately with some classes, that is, win against mobs, but overall you can get the same survivability out of a monk or warrior with the added benefit of dps.

Originally Posted by Seredoc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wizards: Quoted from wiki "Congrats, everyone knows you suck in XP groups..." Erm, this means what? Is it just the long cast times or something? I must not be understanding something about wizards.

Wizards bring fairly low sustained dps to experience groups. They can't use their nukes frequently enough to contribute the dps other classes can. They have some usefulness burning mobs in clutch situations, CCing with root, or stunning casters, but for many those aren't very compelling reasons to want a wizard over something else.

Originally Posted by Seredoc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

is the raiding scene here so messed up that unless I min/max with a cookie cutter race/class combo I can never hope to get in on one? It really seems, for lack of a better word (and only according to forum drama so I am fairly certain I am jumping to atleast a few conclusions xD), tyrannical.

I raided with my ranger and enjoyed it. Got groups on my ranger adequately. Play what you enjoy. If you enjoy being desirable, or powerful, or leveling fast, take that into account. The paladin botb winner was an erudite. The sk botb winner was iksar (can't wear a lot of kunark gear). The shaman botb winner was a troll (arguably worse choice of race than ogre).

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Seredoc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...everyone plays a druid because they're fun but once a druid dings to 40 they should never look for a group ever again,

Also, I don't understand why pallies aren't a few points higher on the duo list...you'd think they'd duo well in mid levels with non kite classes.

Wizards: Quoted from wiki "Congrats, everyone knows you suck in XP groups..." Erm, this means what?

As a rule, P1999 has a much higher proportion of power-gamers and min-maxers than Live had during the classic era. Such folks tend to think in absolutes and typically fall into the trap of thinking if you aren't the best at something, then you can't do it at all. Druids and Wizards have a hard time finding groups because most groups prefer to take Mages or Rogues or such. Paladins are rated as a terrible duo class because a Monk, Warrior, or even a Shadow Knight can do the same job but with better damage output. All of the hybrids--even Bards--have a somewhat tough time finding groups because many players can't accept the thought of possibly lowering their exp/hour by a few percent.

This server replicates classic Everquest, but it can't replicate the classic community. Essentially the various strengths and weaknesses of the different races and classes are magnified here in the eyes of the players.

Danth

[webrunner5]

Yeah but in almost every group you NEED DPS. Lots of it. And a Wizard or a Pally, or a Necro sure as heck doesn't fit that mold sad to say. Even a Ranger can do some pretty good DPS. People want a Monk, Rogue, SK, Warrior, Mage for DPS. You need a healer and a Enchanter and you are set.

[kenzar]

This server needs more beastlords and berserkers. I honestly never see those classes. they were the best classic dps, way better than rogues and monks.

[Anderdale]

Originally Posted by kenzar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This server needs more beastlords and berserkers. I honestly never see those classes. they were the best classic dps, way better than rogues and monks.

beastlords were $$

[Splorf22]

So I did explain this in the guide, but maybe not well enough. Lets hop on over to the wiki and pull out some numbers:

http://wiki.project1999.org/Ambassador_DVinn L20 / 600 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/A_ghoul_executioner L35/1575 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/A_ghoul_sage L37/1740 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/Kobold_priest L40/2000 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/The_ghoul_lord L47/6500 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/Froglok_ostiary L50/8750 hp
http://wiki.project1999.org/Froglok_chef L52/10500 hp

So if you look at this something should immediately jump out at you: The Ghoul Lord has only 7 levels on the Kobold Priest, but he has over three times as many hitpoints! In fact from L42 or so mobs gain about 1000HP per level. Basically in classic with player levels going up to 50, any mob around that level was considered a boss mob and got a corresponding hitpoint boost. What this means is that dps becomes more important, especially sustained melee dps. This is why when you ask people for their ideal group they will usually say something like War/Mnk/Rog/Rog/Cle/Enc where you have 4 pure melee and a charmed pet and you should hit 300+ dps on the parser.

The other problem druids have is that slow and complete heal both become ridiculous. At L40 when you get CH, your tank has 3k hp with buffs. At L60 it'll be 5k. So suddenly clerics are getting 8-10:1 heals while druids have 2.5:1 SH. Shamans get torpor (like a 6:1 heal) as well as slow which effectively makes their heals 4x better as the tank takes less damage. Druids get group regen, which isn't bad but isn't enough. The game would be much, much more balanced if Druids had Torpor instead of shamans imo.

Now, all that being said: you can play whatever class you want and be useful. There are plenty of horrible enchanters/monks/shamans and other "power classes" that aren't nearly as good as a good druid or ranger. The most important rule to "succeed" at 1999 is "be nice" (a rule I don't always manage to follow lol) and #2 is "play a lot".